IPL 2.0′s Biggest Damp Squibs

Four days on, I’m afraid IPL 2.0 has yet to really catch fire. Many individuals have staked early claims to the dubious distinction of being this year’s biggest damp squib. But they’ll have to wait their turn, because there are even bigger disappointments in the shape of…

Weather WoesThe biggest damp squib thus far has been, literally, the damp weather. Far too many matches have been hit by rain and decided by Duckworth-Lewis. Twenty overs per team isn’t all that much to begin with. When teams can win after batting barely five overs, it becomes a bit of a travesty. Not to forget the Mumbai Indians-Rajasthan Royals washout. One of the reasons South Africa was apparently preferred to England as the venue was that the rain in England would affect too many matches. Well, South Africa hasn’t been having too much luck on the weather front. One unfortunate side-effect: viewers have had to spend hours gazing morosely at the pitch and Mandira Bedi — both fully covered up.

Misfiring Young GunsOne of the greatest joys of last year’s IPL was discovering hitherto unheard of young talent. Swapnil Asnodkar, Manpreet Singh Gony, Ashok Dinda, Ravindra Jadeja and Dhawal Kulkarni were just some of the youngsters who went from complete obscurity to instant stardom.

Cinderella stories have, alas, been few and far between this year. Veterans have dominated, and even the few youngsters who have done well are mostly guys who already have international experience. Are foreign conditions proving too daunting for our homegrown talent?

One-Sided MatchesUnlike last year, when many matches went right down to the wire, this year’s IPL has so far seen way too many games where the winner was obvious by the 10th over of the second innings — provided the match went on that long. I’m all for an even contest between bat and ball, and I think low-scoring thrillers can provide just as much drama as huge run chases. But strangely, there have been no even contests, just one thumping after another, which can get pretty boring after a while.

Silly StrategyThe ‘strategy break’ has been derided by cricketers and viewers alike for breaking the game’s momentum. But even if the idea is to squeeze in some more ads, I can’t understand why any advertiser would want to be associated with it. Whenever I’ve been watching a match in office with colleagues and the strategy break has started, there’s been a collective rush for smoking/loo breaks. When I’ve been watching matches at home and it has come on, I’ve happily switched channels, secure in the knowledge that I won’t be missing any action for at least 5 minutes. Assuming that there are many more people behaving in the same way, why would anyone want to book an ad in a slot where it’s almost guaranteed that no one will watch it?

Bright SpotI don’t like to be completely negative about anything, so let me sign off with a mention of the brightest spot so far. And that would have to be… the dog who held up play on Day 1. As perceptive observers have pointed out, the playful pooch spent more time out on the field than most batsmen have managed. His footwork was superb, his — well, dogged — refusal to succumb to blandishments heartwarming. And for sheer entertainment value,he left the highly overpaid IPL superstars way behind. Take a bow, Mr Bow-Wow! And here’s hoping that everything I’ve written will become redundant today. Apart from, of course, the strategy break, which is regrettably here to stay for the full season.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Comments on this post are closed now

Be the first one to review.

Author

Vikas Singh is Resident Editor of The Times of India, Delhi. A self-confessed dilettante, he reads passionately on almost every topic under the sun, but confesses to a special weaknesss for cricket, economics and the economics of cricket -- a range of interests he hopes to replicate in his blog, Rue-Barb Pie.

Vikas Singh is Resident Editor of The Times of India, Delhi. A self-confessed dilettante, he reads passionately on almost every topic under the sun, but con. . .